Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday May 01, 2014 @11:36AM
from the or-maybe-that's-exactly-the-right-kind dept.

R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. ”
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,
1991.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest.

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and says that the prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. This was the proper decision, given the context of "the people" in the 2nd Amendment, and for that matter every other mention of "the people" in the document and its amendments.

I'm lazy so I didn't look into this too much. But it fails even a cursory inspection. As to your Biden quote "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come". It is from this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11... [nytimes.com]> the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).

But Senate supporters of the measure said they would apply whatever pressures they can muster on the House and called on constituents to write and call their representatives. "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come," said Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee.

surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.

As I have stated elsewhere, approximately 0.1% of the guns in the US are used in murders. So you want to burden the other 99.9% of them with expensive tech that the owner may not want?

I also like the use of the phrase "gun deaths." So, if a person commits suicide, how would this bracelet stop them if it is their gun. If it is NOT their gun, how would you deny them access to sleeping pills and alcohol, or a car in a closed garage, or even a piece of rope. Maybe we should put neck detectors in all ropes?

Some gun deaths are caused by police shooting a criminal. Do you suppose that those should be stopped? How about legitimate defensive shootings. Do you want to prevent those?

Really, the ONLY statistic that really matters is when a gun is used in a crime. Throwing out a meaningless statistic like "gun death" simply shows a person with an agenda.

Umm. The government has taken him to court, many times. The courts have ruled against Bundy repeatedly and demanded that he pay grazing fees and fines. He refuses to pay and says he doesn't recognize the authority of the US government.
Washington and Hamilton (who I think count as Founders and had a good sense of the intended power of the government under the constitution) sent troops to Western PA to collect taxes on whiskey. Perhaps the government had other options that would have worked better, but the one they chose is well within the constitution and the history of this country.

Which Militia Act - 1792, 1795, 1862 or 1903? You see, the act of 1903 superseded all the previous acts and established the National Guard as the states' militias. If you are not a member of the National Guard then you aren't in a militia. These militia acts all dealt with the role and rights of states to create and regulate militias versus the role and rights of the Federal government in these matters. Try again.

People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either.
Or if the safety is off.

That's why it is nice to have a revolver with no safety.

Or if it's loaded.

That's why I keep it loaded. It isn't much use in a home invasion if it isn't loaded.

Or if the kid didn't move it from the usual place when he showed it to his friends.

That's why you teach your children how to use guns at a young enough age that they understand it isn't a toy and they don't touch it.

There's already a lot of uncertainty. You can't be sure of anything if you don't take care of it.
So no, a battery isn't an issue, it's another safety.

Electronics fail, batteries die, the more complicated you make something, the less reliable it is. That's why a revolver makes a better home defense gun than one with a clip and a slide and a safety. Those guns jam and misfire much more often when left there untouched for a year or more than the much more simple mechanism in a plain revolver.

Actually, the state of New Jersey already has a law on the books that once such a technology becomes generally available, it will become mandatory. So yes, in fact, someone IS forcing residents to buy that gun or no gun at all.

Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....

To legally use an automobile in most of the US, you need a state-issued license that has training and testing requirements, a state-tracked title to the car, a state-tracked registration for the car, clearly viewable identification tags, and usually safety gear (seatbelt, airbags, crumple zones, etc), insurance and a key. To legally use a gun in most locations, you need a gun and ammo. All these requirements were legislated into existence by "leftist" politicians over the loud protests by the right, usually claiming that they would destroy the automotive industry.

Those aren't really extreme points. Yet you're still arguing that he's wrong. Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun? Because in that case you're the one that's wrong. Gun statistics are often hard to come by because the NRA tries to de-fund any organization that tries to collect them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in the news cases where people have accidentally been shot by a gun in their own home, or accidentally shot someone else thinking they are an intruder. That brings the chance up to > 0%.

Guns are dangerous tools, designed to be dangerous and injure people. If you disagree, then you should DEFINITELY NOT be allowed to handle them because you'll probably end up killing someone. It's not comparable to automobiles that, while dangerous, are designed with safety in mind and useful for transporting people.

Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead
Use a car for its intended purpose = someone ends up at the grocery store

Perhaps you're an awesome gun owner. Statistically, however, guns in the home are 5x more likely to be used to kill someone in the home (suicide, murder) than to stop an intruder. So if nothing else an electronic gun lock will save lives by making the gun a bit harder to use.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 5, 2013.

CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446

Everything since then as been pretty much Lies and fear spread by the PR company that runs the NRA.

That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.

That makes absolutely no sense. How does having a gun that only shoots for you but has a small chance of failing equate to any of those things? That's some asinine pro-gun logic right there.

On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous.